- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:15:54 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:42 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> There are two values for list-style-position: 'inside' and 'outside'. >> Their primary effect is changing where the ::marker is placed in the >> element-tree. > > I'm with you so far. > >> 'outside' also tweaks the default value > > Do you mean computed value? No, I think it's valid to have a property on the superior parent modify the initial value of a property on the pseudo. If not, then yeah, I'll somehow phrase it as tweaking the computed value. >> of a few >> properties on ::marker, >> including making it "position:marker". > > OK. That bit of magic wasn't clear to me before. I had thought "position:marker" was just to move arbitrary elements into marker position. It is. Did you accidentally read the implication in the reverse direction from what I wrote? "position:marker" moves things into marker position. "list-style-position:outside" makes the ::marker be "position:marker" initially. In other words, outside ::marker pseudos use the generic "position:marker" mechanism to position themselves. >> that list-items happen to possess (modulo the >> few places where 'outside' tweaks default property values). This >> seems elegant and minimally invasive, which hopefully means that it >> should be easy to understand too. > > OK so at least I understand you better now. However, "new positioning scheme based on how markers are typically positioned" doesn't sound significantly less magical than "outside marker content has a containment block that is the box where markers are typically positioned". The significant difference is only that you can't easily use abspos to emulate outside-marker positioning in the presence of floats. Without floats, you can get pretty close, as you demonstrated. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 20:16:41 UTC